The James Carroll Paradox

Why has this thoughtful writer missed or distorted vital information about the Arab-Israeli conflict?

James Carroll has won admiration and gratitude from many for Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews, his landmark work examining the historic role of the Catholic church in fostering anti-Semitism. In it, he argues unsparingly that the ground for the Holocaust was richly seeded by centuries of church indoctrination that demonized Jews as being collectively guilty for killing Christ.

Carroll has also written sympathetically of the importance of Israel as a Jewish homeland and refuge. All the more perplexing, then, that in numerous opinion pieces in the Boston Globe, this thoughtful writer has missed or distorted vital information about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Perhaps most inexplicable, given the writer's awareness of the lethal impact of the inculcation of hatred against Jews in Europe, is his apparent refusal to credit Palestinian hate-indoctrination as the underlying cause of the savage attacks against Jews in Israel. Instead, readers are offered platitudes such as his claim that "Palestinian terrorism is rooted, above all, in the economic hopelessness of millions of impoverished and dispossessed Palestinians..." (September 2001) Carroll is evidently unwilling to hold accountable the Palestinian Authority, which from its inception has stoked anti-Jewish hatred through schools, media, mosques, summer camps and political rallies that have painted Jews as alien, thieving conquerors, to be driven out or destroyed.

The calamitous outcome is a population energized to kill a dehumanized foe.

Carroll minimizes Palestinian enthusiasm for terrorism.

In the same vein, Carroll minimizes Palestinian enthusiasm for terrorism. In a June 2003 column devoted almost entirely to Palestinian grievances -- including his observation that "destruction of trees can be almost as shocking as assaults on human life" -- he asserted that "a mere fraction of the Palestinian population" supports terrorism. Yet a respected Palestinian polling agency, the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, just weeks earlier had found a substantial majority of 59.9% of Palestinians supported suicide bombings "against Israeli civilians." How, one wonders, is it possible for Mr. Carroll to confront the Catholic church for its action but to deny virulent hate-mongering by the PA?

In other instances, Carroll's opinion pieces are marred by surprising misinformation that tilts against Israel. For instance, on February 17, 2004 in a column datelined "Jerusalem," he described Israel's security fence as "a high cement barrier that will run hundreds of miles..." and that "veers far from the original 1967 border in numerous places... a repudiation of the hope for a negotiated resolution to the conflict over territory."

Wrong on multiple counts, he included a correction of the first statement in his next column. It read: "In my column on Feb. 17, I referred to the barrier between Israel and the West Bank as a 'high cement barrier that will run hundreds of miles...' As readers pointed out to me, the cement portion of the wall/fence will not run the whole distance. Barbed wire will also be used." This unworthy "correction" does not, of course, make clear that Israel's barrier includes only a few miles of concrete wall -- less than 3% of the total when completed -- and that concrete is being used only at those points close to Palestinian towns where gunmen have shot at civilians driving in Israel on Israeli roads.

Mr. Carroll did not correct the other error at all -- a serious one he has made repeatedly, regarding what he terms the "original 1967 border." (A May 2002 column devoted to assailing Israel for allegedly "dissolving" its eastern "border" also referred to the "vestigial 'green line,' the borders of 1967.") But the 1967 lines are not a border. After the 1947-48 war, the Arabs refused to recognize Israel, and insisted the boundaries were only ceasefire lines, and this remained their legal status. The eastern borders of Israel are yet to be decided. Moreover, UN Resolution 242, the foundation stone of Arab-Israeli negotiations, explicitly avoided requiring an Israeli retreat to the 1967 lines, its drafters believing those were indefensible.

In addition, Israel's fence can, of course, be moved, and its construction hardly constitutes a repudiation of a negotiated settlement, as Carroll claims.

In numerous other assertions about Israel, the writer falls prey to rote accusation -- that Ariel Sharon and settlements are the problem, and that Israel has used "overwhelming force," "collective punishment" and "extrajudicial assassination." In a characteristic statement just weeks after the 2002 massacre of innocents on Pesach and the launch of Operation Defensive Shield, Carroll declared that "Israeli incursions into the West Bank have been irrational and counterproductive..."

Undoubtedly, James Carroll favors the defense of Jewish life by the sovereign state of Israel just as he eloquently lamented its vast loss during the millennia of Jewish statelessness. At the same time, however, he attacks Israel for whatever means it uses to defend its people in the current terror war.

Carroll would prefer, no doubt, that a solution come about by Israel again offering Camp David-style concessions and the Palestinians this time reciprocating with genuine peace. But the Palestinians, under the Palestinian Authority, have overwhelmingly and brutally rejected that course.

In placing the onus on Israel for the ongoing violence and characterizing as illegitimate its efforts at defense, the writer does a disservice to Israel no less unfair than the anti-Jewish campaigns of the past he commendably criticizes.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 6

(6)
Anonymous,
April 8, 2005 12:00 AM

As I read this article, I was thinking about how I wanted to respond. When I get to the end and set out to write, I immediately noticed that "Spacetuna" (now there's a name!) had already said exactly (down to some of the details) what I wanted to write. Its like he or she read my mind. Indeed, there are many leftists who decry the Nazis's treatment of the Jews, blame the Catholic Church for incubating the antisemitism that led to the Holocaust, and then turn around and blame Israel for all the problems in the middle east, all while bemoaning the plight of the Palestinians. Congratulations, Spacetuna, you said it better than I could, and at least on this one issue, you speak for me. And there is, therefore, no paradox at all.

(5)
Anonymous,
May 5, 2004 12:00 AM

I grew up poor and many people around the world are poor, yet they do not go around blowing themselves up to kill as many people as possible, of course they are not promised the reward of 72 virgins awaiting them in paradise. Incidentally, what is the reward for women? If poverty was the reason, they should then rebel against their own ruler who is worth billions of dollars while his wife lives in Paris. She has been under investigation lately for having received a $9 million dollars check from her husband. Obviously, opulence belongs to the ruling class in the Arab world and James Caroll would rather turn a blind eye to that, it is so much easier to find a scapegoat, the Jews.

(4)
spacetuna,
March 16, 2004 12:00 AM

it's all politics

I hate to say it, but Carroll is like most of the other leftist "defenders of the Jews" in the West. The idea behind defending us is to score points against the "real enemy," which is Western civilization in general, which implies Christianity, and capitalism in particular. That's why the same people who weep for the Jews of the West barely acknowledge the existence of the Jews of the Dar-al-Islam, and weep even louder for the "poor suffering humiliated" Palestinians. Now that it's clear that the future of the Jews is tied to the West, we are no longer useful as a stick for beating the status quo, and those who openly promise to kill us all are the "noble cause" of the moment. Who needs friends like these? Carroll isn't and wasn't a friend of the Jews, he's an enemy of the Catholic Church, and the enemy of his enemy is his only friend.

(3)
Dr Clive Feingold,
March 15, 2004 12:00 AM

excellent articles-thank you.

I have printed and forwarded a lot of your articles to friends which help to keep us informed, so that we may counter out critics.

(2)
susan fishman,
March 15, 2004 12:00 AM

It is obvious, like the rest of the world, it is so much easier to cry and pound ones chest over "dead Jews!" Look what a fuss the whole world is making over one dead Jew. Europe is buiding Holocaust museums at the very same time sending money to arm the new Jew killers. Dead Jews are good, lives ones have to be dead to be good.

(1)
Anonymous,
March 15, 2004 12:00 AM

Wolf in Sheeps Clothing

Why has this thoughtful writer missed or distorted vital information about the Arab-Israel conflict?

The answer requires that we recognise Carroll,for who he is despite himself.
Having read his book I am convinced that Carroll if possessed of a truly discerning mind. Would accept the only conclusion possible. To disavow himself from Christian doctrine . Given,that he cannot and his comments on the State of Israel. One is left with the obvious conclusion...

I've been striving to get more into spirituality. But it seems that every time I make some progress, I find myself slipping right back to where I started. I'm getting discouraged and feel like a failure. Can you help?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Spiritual slumps are a natural part of spiritual growth. There is a cycle that people go through when at times they feel closer to God and at times more distant. In the words of the Kabbalists, it is "two steps forward and one step back." So although you feel you are slipping, know that this is a natural process. The main thing is to look at your overall progress (over months or years) and be able to see how far you've come!

This is actually God's ingenious way of motivating us further. The sages compare this to teaching a baby how to walk. When the parent is holding on, the baby shrieks with delight and is under the illusion that he knows how to walk. Yet suddenly, when the parent lets go, the child panics, wobbles and may even fall.

At such times when we feel spiritually "down," that is often because God is letting go, giving us the great gift of independence. In some ways, these are the times when we can actually grow the most. For if we can move ourselves just a little bit forward, we truly acquire a level of sanctity that is ours forever.

Here is a practical tool to help pull you out of the doldrums. The Sefer HaChinuch speaks about a great principle in spiritual growth: "The external awakens the internal." This means that although we may not experience immediate feelings of closeness to God, eventually, by continuing to conduct ourselves in such a manner, this physical behavior will have an impact on our spiritual selves and will help us succeed. (A similar idea is discussed by psychologists who say: "Smile and you will feel happy.")

That is the power of Torah commandments. Even if we may not feel like giving charity or praying at this particular moment, by having a "mitzvah" obligation to do so, we are in a framework to become inspired. At that point we can infuse that act of charity or prayer with all the meaning and lift it can provide. But if we'd wait until being inspired, we might be waiting a very long time.

May the Almighty bless you with the clarity to see your progress, and may you do so with joy.

In 1940, a boatload 1,600 Jewish immigrants fleeing Hitler's ovens was denied entry into the port of Haifa; the British deported them to the island of Mauritius. At the time, the British had acceded to Arab demands and restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. The urgent plight of European Jewry generated an "illegal" immigration movement, but the British were vigilant in denying entry. Some ships, such as the Struma, sunk and their hundreds of passengers killed.

If you seize too much, you are left with nothing. If you take less, you may retain it (Rosh Hashanah 4b).

Sometimes our appetites are insatiable; more accurately, we act as though they were insatiable. The Midrash states that a person may never be satisfied. "If he has one hundred, he wants two hundred. If he gets two hundred, he wants four hundred" (Koheles Rabbah 1:34). How often have we seen people whose insatiable desire for material wealth resulted in their losing everything, much like the gambler whose constant urge to win results in total loss.

People's bodies are finite, and their actual needs are limited. The endless pursuit for more wealth than they can use is nothing more than an elusive belief that they can live forever (Psalms 49:10).

The one part of us which is indeed infinite is our neshamah (soul), which, being of Divine origin, can crave and achieve infinity and eternity, and such craving is characteristic of spiritual growth.

How strange that we tend to give the body much more than it can possibly handle, and the neshamah so much less than it needs!